The solution isn't in the source, it's in the consumption. LEDs are more helpful than solar cells. Transportation as we know it is archaic. I'm not pointing fingers. Like I said, I move a couple tons of vehicle five miles over mountains to get a cup of coffee and a doughnut sometimes. What culture of the past would have found that even conceivable?

And as far as cows emitting greenhouse gasses (primarily instrumental as methane- CH4 vs CO2) it is carbon which is part of this era's balanced cycle, not sequestered fossil carbon which was part of a poisonous prehistoric atmosphere. Burn cow methane, fine. Balance stays the same. Dredge up fossil carbon and turn it into gas, things will change. Interesting read here re. methane clathrates of possible warming effects on sea ice:

Hey, this is the water cooler... any topic permitted, even if you're wrong (kidding).

IMHO - and I know this is a divisive view - I personally don't think the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are responsible for most of the "climate change" that we're seeing - directly OR indirectly. I grant you they will have a very small effect on atmospheric temperatures, but I'm plenty sure the Earth has enough radiative capacity to shed any extra heat to space. Furthermore, increasing atmospheric temperatures are supposed to result in less cloud cover = more heat escaping... it's all checks & balances. I'm loathe to blindly "accept the science" for a couple of reasons: One, the unspeakable arrogance of the "anthropogenic CO2 is to blame" brigade, who will literally not even listen to any skepticism, even from qualified scientists ("The science is settled" - well, that'll be the first time in the entire history of science then). Two, because the definition of "not being in an ice age" is the lack of permanent polar ice. By that definition, we are right at the very tail end of the last ice age, and about to settle in for a long warm spell.

There seems to be this odd belief that the climate was "just about perfect" sometime before 1980. Yet climate changes all the time. Heck, go back far enough and the entire atmosphere was completely different. It's widely believed that O2 concentrations in the era of the Dinosaur were far higher than 20%, biology tells us they had to be otherwise such big animals simply couldn't take in enough oxygen to survive.

Anyway... enough of that... more about batteries. Graphene, the new wonder material that just keeps on giving, seems to be key in making new and extremely energy dense batteries... they're even starting to turn up on the market now, will be interesting to see what happens to the EV market when large sized Graphene batteries become commonplace...

Logged

Cheers!Ade.--Location: Wallasey, Merseyside. A long way from anywhere.Or: Zhengzhou, China. An even longer way from anywhere...Skype: adev73

I saw some interesting statistics correlating ocean temperature, sun spot activity and atmospheric CO2 levels about year ago but cannot now find the figures.

The interesting thing was that over hundreds (maybe thousands) of years, ocean temperatures have risen following increased sun activity, and after a fairly consistent LAG then CO2 in the atmosphere had risen. The conclusion drawn was that the ocean warmed a bit, had less capacity to absorb CO2 so then released it to atmosphere.

So from that the main mover in CO2 levels was believed to be sun spot activity !

Now what's this about CO2 being released if water warm up ? Well you only have to compare a bottle of Coke (dreadful stuff!) from the 'fridge with one at room temperature to see the effect when you remove the top !

I thought that the really clever bit was how they were getting and also deducing their measurements. I was convinced and I'm fairly skeptical about off the wall theories.